You know, at first I was (understandably) apalled; but really this is a thought-provoking perspective...

I am fortunate to know a good many people from all economic levels; and in wealthier families, often the kids are raised by nannies, while the parents
either work crazy hours to gain further wealth, or indulge themselves rather than spending time with their children - even when they have ample time
available. Now you might think that a caring nanny could take the place of lack of parental love, but kids are intelligent, and they
know they are being neglected. It is then no surprise when these kids grow up, trying to fill a seemingly bottomless hole, with drugs,
alcohol, thrill-seeking etc. and sadder yet, when any of them die due to the above.

It happens in poor families too by the way - but for different reasons. Often the parents are working two or more jobs, or too many hours just to
barely make ends meet, and so end up having no time left to spend with their children. This is also what can happen when the increasing cost of
living usurps stagnant wages, despite that family finances were fine when they first procreated. Some of these children run the streets or are
"latch-key" kids - so called because they carry house keys to let themselves into an empty home after school. They too, grow up trying to fill a
bottomless hole, but because they don't have wealth or connections to protect them from their dalliance into drugs etc., they often end up in the
criminal justice system.

So you see, these issues truly know no financial boundaries; and the two opposite spectrums are much more similar than they would ever believe.
Ironically, one segment of neglect is caused by too much money, and the other by too little - the end result is the same though. This is but one
reason I am a proponent of levelling out the economic disparities between the lowest and highest ends of the spectrum - as by extension we would also
be levelling out the societal and familial problems that are caused by extreme excess or extreme lack as well.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom
You know, at first I was (understandably) apalled; but really this is a thought-provoking perspective...

I am fortunate to know a good many people from all economic levels; and in wealthier families, often the kids are raised by nannies, while the parents
either work crazy hours to gain further wealth, or indulge themselves rather than spending time with their children - even when they have ample time
available. Now you might think that a caring nanny could take the place of lack of parental love, but kids are intelligent, and they
know they are being neglected. It is then no surprise when these kids grow up, trying to fill a seemingly bottomless hole, with drugs,
alcohol, thrill-seeking etc. and sadder yet, when any of them die due to the above.

It happens in poor families too by the way - but for different reasons. Often the parents are working two or more jobs, or too many hours just to
barely make ends meet, and so end up having no time left to spend with their children. This is also what can happen when the increasing cost of
living usurps stagnant wages, despite that family finances were fine when they first procreated. Some of these children run the streets or are
"latch-key" kids - so called because they carry house keys to let themselves into an empty home after school. They too, grow up trying to fill a
bottomless hole, but because they don't have wealth or connections to protect them from their dalliance into drugs etc., they often end up in the
criminal justice system.

So you see, these issues truly know no financial boundaries; and the two opposite spectrums are much more similar than they would ever believe.
Ironically, one segment of neglect is caused by too much money, and the other by too little - the end result is the same though. This is but one
reason I am a proponent of levelling out the economic disparities between the lowest and highest ends of the spectrum - as by extension we would also
be levelling out the societal and familial problems that are caused by extreme excess or extreme lack as well.

Great post, you explained that well ....

There is most certainly a need to bring some unity back to the home, the cats and the cradle is a very repetitive story

There are more ways in life of being successsful as a human being that just wealth and power.

I want my child to reach his full potential in whatever his dreams are and will do everything in my power to help him achieve that goal but with love,
security, encouragement and praise. More importantly than money I want him to have the social skills to have lots of friends and people who love him
simply for just being him. I want him to have a future where he is loved and where he loves and where he has security when the day comes I am no
longer there.

Would I like him to be rich and successful, yes if that is what makes him happy, but if it means he sits in an ivory tower isolated, alone and only
liked because of what wealth he has then no I dont.

When I was training to be a counsellor they said most people should follow the road that they wanted as a child although most dont. David is 8 and
wants to buy a piece of land and start off small and turn it into a theme park like no other. Ive been realistic and explained he will need billions,
management and business skills and be able to sell his vision to lots of investors. He had wondered if he saved his spends each week until he is 18
whether he would then have enough. His little face crumpled when I told him that wouldnt be enough lol

It is just that your post read to me as if you feel like maybe you have been neglected and ignored, set impossible goals, only rewarded
by attention / affection when you are achieving targets set for you and not by you, when you were growing up ?

Every parent wants their kids to be successful in life although not simply by being rich. Making a big heap of money or being a celebrity does not
always equate to success.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.